The general arrangement drawing
In the larger of the two buildings—Project A—the
decision was made to confine the architect’s information
about primary elements to a single (2-) drawing. A
decision was made at about the same time in relation to
the smaller and simpler Project B to sub-divide the
primary elements to a greater degree. Since the reasons
for arriving at these decisions were different in each
case, they serve to illustrate the importance of thinking
about what you are trying to achieve before actually
starting to draw.
On Project A, which had a reinforced concrete frame
and floor slabs, and which enjoyed the services of a
structural consultant, it was deemed unnecessary,
not to say inadvisable, for the architect’s drawings to
give constructional information about structural
elements which were clearly the responsibility of the
structural engineer. So floors (23), stairs (24), roofs
(27) and frames (28), whilst appearing on the
architect’s primary element drawing (2-), nevertheless,
remain in outline only. Against each of these
elements appears a reference to the fact that the
appropriate structural engineer’s drawing should be
consulted, thus satisfying the second of the two basic
functions of a general arrangement plan—either to
locate the element it deals with or to state where it may
be found.
Of the other primary elements—and in this particular
instance the walls and partitions are the primary
consideration—the information given about them
consists of statements as to where they are to be placed
(i.e. dimensions from known reference points—sensibly,
in this instance the structural grid); what they consist of
(i.e. notes on their materials or reference back to more
detailed specification information); and where further
information about them may be found (i.e. coded
references to relevant assembly details). The primary
elements dealt with on this particular drawing, as distinct
from primary elements dealt with on other general
arrangement drawings, are identified by being
emphasised in a heavier line than that used for the rest
of the drawing.The comparable (2-) drawing for the smaller of the two
projects had obvious points of similarity but the
reasoning behind its production was somewhat different.
The building was of simple two-storeyed load-bearing
brick construction, with simply supported timber roof and
floor joists and timber staircase. There was no structural
engineer, so the design and detailing of these structural
elements devolved upon the architect.Two primary elements drawings were therefore
produced—a generic (--) drawing covering both
external walls and internal partitions and a (27) drawing
covering the roof construction. Both are shown in2.12
and 2.13.It is worth making a point about the way in which the
brickwork was described in each case because it
illustrates the fundamentally common sense way in
which all such decisions should be handled (2.14). In the
larger building there were four different types of
brickwork involved. These were:1 A Class II engineering brick in cement mortar, used in
manholes and certain works below ground.
2 A common brick to BS 3921 Part II, laid in a 1:1:6
mortar mix and used generally for all backings.
3 A sand–lime facing to BS 187, laid in 1:1:6 mortar to
a Flemish bond and used generally as a facing brick
to wall panels.
4 A hand-made fired clay facing brick, used in certain
featured areas on the entrance facade and laid to a
decorative pattern.A schedule of brickwork types formed part of the
specification, in which each type was fully identified and
described. The reference Fg1/3 on the drawing would